Review of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay

[Jonny Nexus]

I am critical of the personal attacks and insults thrown at the man.

If anything, he wrote a review targeted to the D&D crowd that will make them look at the game rather than just dismiss it. A lot of people will not touch anything that does not have a d20 label. By showing fans of D&D how Warhammer is mechanically similiar, he is giving a de facto boost to the image of Warhammer.

I don't agree with personal attacks, but this review does seem to have a very slanted view.

It's a bit like someone "reviewing" a novel by saying, "XXXX is a very good novel, which is not surprising because it is largely derived from the novel YYYY, which I wrote some years ago". If - in that example - it turned out that the novel XXXX was not in any way derived from the novel YYYY, the author of XXXX - and his or her supporters - would rightly be very aggrieved. Defending the actions of the "reviewer" by saying that his actions were likely to encourage people who'd read and enjoyed YYYY to go out and read XXXX would, in my opinion, be somewhat missing the point.

 

[Akrasia]

Not only were some of the posts extreme, but many were uncalled for. Not to mention the ever flamining hostility to D&D at RPGnet. It is the huge anti-d20 bias there that I see as the main reason for the flames. You could compare a donut to d20 on RPGnet and get flames a majority of posters who defend the donut.

There are actually a lot of d20 fans over at RPG.net. Not as many as here (obviously), but there is hardly a universal anti-d20 position there.

Also, I found that thread on Dancey's review over at RPG.net most entertaining.

 

[Akrasia]

I am critical of the personal attacks and insults thrown at the man.
....

Is it a 'personal attack' to point out previous immoral, and possibly illegal, behaviour? :\

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Not only were some of the posts extreme, but many were uncalled for. Not to mention the ever flamining hostility to D&D at RPGnet. It is the huge anti-d20 bias there that I see as the main reason for the flames. You could compare a donut to d20 on RPGnet and get flames a majority of posters who defend the donut.

Well I'm not a big fan of RPGNet and don't go there, for reasons which aren't any secret but which I won't go into here because they a) aren't relevant to the discussion, and b) might potentially be seen as entering into the realms of politics and/or religion.

But to a certain extent, ENWorld is the site for people who play D20 while RPGNet is the site for people who don't. Outright hostility there to D20 is stupid, and the people who display it stupid also. But equally, there are plenty of people on ENWorld who upon hearing that a game is non-D20 will loudly declare how stupid a move that is and insist that they will never buy it for that reason alone.

 

[wedgeski]

It's a bit like someone "reviewing" a novel by saying, "XXXX is a very good novel, which is not surprising because it is largely derived from the novel YYYY, which I wrote some years ago". If - in that example - it turned out that the novel XXXX was not in any way derived from the novel YYYY, the author of XXXX - and his or her supporters - would rightly be very aggrieved. Defending the actions of the "reviewer" by saying that his actions were likely to encourage people who'd read and enjoyed YYYY to go out and read XXXX would, in my opinion, be somewhat missing the point.

Yes but at the end of the day, this review is an opinion piece. That it's from Ryan Dancey seems to lend it a perception that it's the d20 establishment saying those things, when it's not. However, RD's approach to this whole thing (posting such a thing on RPGnet of all places, then posting a new thread here to draw attention to it) has not helped matters. At the end of the day, I agree with his slant that WHFRP2ed is derivative of D&D3ed, and objectively, my opinion is much more subjective about the matter than Ryan Dancey's, who has far more experience in the matter than I ever will.

 

[MonsterMash]

Got to admit that as far as reviews of WHFRP 2 go I found the one at RPG.net doing a comparison to the original version to be the most useful, as it is comparing like with like.

Personally I am interested in WHFRP2 and will try and play it at some point, but just having the time seems to be hard at the moment.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Only one more thing to add: I bought WFRP v2 without having played or read v1. While reading it, I was struck several times by the similarities to D&D, especially in the realm of combat. I knew that the author of v2 was a big d20 writer, and I assumed that these things had been influenced by D&D.

The point being, if Mr. Dancey hasn't played WFRP v1 (recently), it's quite understandable that he might see other similarities (that were in fact relics of v1) and assume that they were in large part derived from D&D.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

I agree with his slant that WHFRP2ed is derivative of D&D3ed, and objectively, my opinion is much more subjective about the matter than Ryan Dancey's, who has far more experience in the matter than I ever will.

Okay, my belief is that WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed. That is, I believe that Green Ronin took the WFRP 1ed rules, and then added various new elements:

- some of which were newly created;

- some of which were concepts which - since the writing of 1ed - have become regarded as a universal game concept (such as a universal die roll); and

- some of which are concepts found in D&D 3ed (such as full, half and free actions - although other people have claimed that these are in fact universal concepts also).

I further believe (and I've played both editions of WFRP plus also D&D 3Ed) that if you were to go through the WFRP 3ed rulebook, circling every single game element (rule, concept etc.) with a colour-coded pencil according to whether it came from the WFRP 1ed rulebook or the D&D 3ed rulebook or a bunch of other rulebooks, it's my opinion that you would find that for every "D&D 3ed circle" you would have literally dozens and dozens of "WFRP 1ed circles".

Basically, when I played WFRP 2ed it felt a *lot* like WFRP 1ed, and very little like D&D 3ed. It's the original system, updated. It's not D20. At all.

That would simply *not* be the case if WFRP 2ed was indeed derived from D&D 3ed (i.e. if it's rules were based on the D20 SRD, with just a few old WFRP flavour elements thrown in).

In short: WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed, and *not* D&D 3ed.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Got to admit that as far as reviews of WHFRP 2 go I found the one at RPG.net doing a comparison to the original version to be the most useful, as it is comparing like with like.

Personally I am interested in WHFRP2 and will try and play it at some point, but just having the time seems to be hard at the moment.

Thanks for pointing this out. It certainly answers most of my questions. All round a better written and more useful review than Mr Dancey's.

 

[GrumpyOldMan]

Okay, my belief is that WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed. That is, I believe that Green Ronin took the WFRP 1ed rules, and then added various new elements:

.........................................

In short: WFRP 2ed is derived from WFRP 1ed, and *not* D&D 3ed.

Based on reading the RPGnet review, I've come to the same conclusion.